The Admissibility of Subregional Courts’ Decisions before the African Commission. .. 267 The case dealt with claim of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro for violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by destroying and attempting to destroy in whole national, ethnical or religious groups within the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.172 The Court identified two purposes of res judicata.173 ‘First, the stability of legal relations requires that litigation come to an end.’174 ‘secondly, it is in the interest of each party that an issue which has already been adjudicated in favour of that party be not argued again.’175 For a case to be barred by res judicata, it must pass ‘the triple identity test.’176 That is, res judicata ‘applies where there is an identity of parties, identity of cause, and identity of subject-matter in between the earlier and subsequent proceedings.’177 Based on the Civil Procedure Acts of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, the East African Court of Justice laid down almost a similar test.178 The Court identified three situations that are essential to apply res judicata:179 “One, the matter must be ‘directly and substantially’ in issue in the two suits. Two, parties must be the same or parties under whom any of them claim litigating under the same title. Lastly, the matter was finally decided in the previous suit.” The African Commission applied this test in Bakweri Land Claims Committee case when it held that the ‘parties before the African Commission have not disputed the fact that they were the very same parties at loggerheads before the UN Sub-Commission disputing the same issues as before the African Commission.’180 However, the Commission does not consider decision on admissibility as a final settlement of the matter. The principle of res judicata applies when the decision has been taken on the merits. In this case, the Commission considered a communication that had already been declared inadmissible by the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.181 It was of the opinion that had there been final settlement of the matter, the decision of the UN Sub-Commission would have 172Ibid, para 65. 173Ibid, para 116. 174Ibid. 175Ibid. 176Michael Ottolenghi & Peter Prows (2009), ‘Res Judicata in the ICJ's Genocide Case: Implications for Other Courts and Tribunals?’ Pace International Law Review 37, Vol. 21, at 48. 177 Genocide case, supra note 162, joint dissenting opinion of judges Ranjeva, Shi and Koroma. 178Katabazi case, supra note 53, para 31. 179Ibid; see also Garner, supra note 151, p. 1052. 180 Bakweri Land Claims Committee case, supra note 157, para 53. Emphasis supplied. 181Ibid, para 50.